Okay, I have not read the whole thing. But a cursory examination should put paid to Mirza's claims that Islam has never launched offensive wars.http://www.answering-islam.org...

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

For instance, it says, "In Syria, for example, many Christians who had been involved in bitter theological disputes with Byzantine authorities- and persecuted for it- welcomed the coming of Islam as an end to tyranny. And in Egypt, which 'Amr ibn al-'As took from the Byzantines after a daring march across the Sinai Peninsula, the Coptic Christians not only welcomed the Arabs, but enthusiastically assisted them."

For instance, it says, "In Syria, for example, many Christians who had been involved in bitter theological disputes with Byzantine authorities- and persecuted for it- welcomed the coming of Islam as an end to tyranny. And in Egypt, which 'Amr ibn al-'As took from the Byzantines after a daring march across the Sinai Peninsula, the Coptic Christians not only welcomed the Arabs, but enthusiastically assisted them."

And all the other examples?

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

At 4/19/2010 10:43:58 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:And all the other examples?

There were battles, but as I said, there are battles for good and bad. There were hostile empires before the Muslim one even arose. It appeared that Muslims were the ones to be good in opposing to those empires.

C-N cool it, he knows he's wrong. I'm gonna debate Mirza tomorrow (13am GMT+1) about the birth of Islam and it's imperialist Nature in regards to Christianity. This time and make the debate worth your reading.

For instance, it says, "In Syria, for example, many Christians who had been involved in bitter theological disputes with Byzantine authorities- and persecuted for it- welcomed the coming of Islam as an end to tyranny. And in Egypt, which 'Amr ibn al-'As took from the Byzantines after a daring march across the Sinai Peninsula, the Coptic Christians not only welcomed the Arabs, but enthusiastically assisted them."

I descend form a Coptic Orthodox line so I beg to differ. I live in the UK because of the way Islam treats Christians.

At 4/19/2010 10:56:58 AM, Zetsubou wrote:I descend form a Coptic Orthodox line so I beg to differ. I live in the UK because of the way Islam treats Christians.

I live in Denmark because Christians wanted to exaggerate Muslims in my native land. Luckily I differentiate between Christians.

If you think the Qur'an treats Christians badly (i.e. tells Muslims to do so), then accept the debate challenge right away. Then we will even have the spread of Islam/Christianity covered, since it is not important what the followers do, but what the religions teach.

Besides, what will you use? answering-islam.com. I refer you to books, and you ignore them. I give you facts, you ignore them. You mention conquests. What does that have to do with leading aggressive wars? You can conquer something by fighting a defensive war.

At 4/19/2010 11:12:25 AM, Mirza wrote:Besides, what will you use? answering-islam.com. I refer you to books, and you ignore them. I give you facts, you ignore them. You mention conquests. What does that have to do with leading aggressive wars? You can conquer something by fighting a defensive war.

At 4/19/2010 12:06:43 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:Well why would he when he knows he'll lose? He wants to able to continue twisting and distorting the words of the Qur'an to make us look like mass-murderers.

He wants to come with biased theories about Islam being spread with the sword. And the fact that anyone compares it to Christianity, when we know that it was spread with the spilling of innocent blood across Europe, Africa, Middle East, South America, North America, etc., it disgraceful. Christians enslaved black people when they had the opportunity to. Islam was the religion that called for abolishment of this horrible slavery. It came with something much better, such as humane treatment to prisoners of war. They must be treated nicely no matter of what. I can quote Biblical verses calling for slavery right away. I can quote Biblical verses where God orders men to slaughter children and women. And somebody compares it to the Qur'an and the spread of Islam? Those people are misinformed.

At 4/19/2010 12:06:43 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:Well why would he when he knows he'll lose? He wants to able to continue twisting and distorting the words of the Qur'an to make us look like mass-murderers.

He wants to come with biased theories about Islam being spread with the sword. And the fact that anyone compares it to Christianity, when we know that it was spread with the spilling of innocent blood across Europe, Africa, Middle East, South America, North America, etc., it disgraceful. Christians enslaved black people when they had the opportunity to. Islam was the religion that called for abolishment of this horrible slavery. It came with something much better, such as humane treatment to prisoners of war. They must be treated nicely no matter of what. I can quote Biblical verses calling for slavery right away. I can quote Biblical verses where God orders men to slaughter children and women. And somebody compares it to the Qur'an and the spread of Islam? Those people are misinformed.

I'm not double standarding, I'll make a criteria, for you to accept. If Islam is so clean you'll accept it.

At 4/19/2010 12:17:25 PM, Zetsubou wrote:It's not the Qur'an, it's MUSLIMS[The qur'an is more peaceful]. I would have accepted any chanllenge from you or Mirza, but I find private debates to be more meaning full than offical ones.

Mirza just won't accept Islam was forced to hold the bloody sword, and does so even today.

No. You don't differentiate between battles (with blood, yes) due to defense and for aggression.

And it is spreading with force today? Nonsense.

Tell me, which Islamic army conquered Indonesia? Say it if you can. Mention one soldier of an Islamic army that conquered it, and I am giving up on this right now. It was spread through traders etc., just like everywhere else. The thing here is that nobody opposed Muslims, unlike Christians in Europe who did.

Also, why are you following a book more violent than the Qur'an? If you think the Qur'an encourages Muslims to fight, then let us debate it. Let's end this discussing with that. Let's see whether the Qur'an will make people kill ever before the Bible.

Who is the guy holding the gun? A Christian. Who are the ones that got killed? Muslims. If you think you are living proof for anything related to Islam, then I tell you that I am living proof who had witnessed a ruined country due to Christians. I am living proof that people who compare Muslims to Christians in violence, and Islam and Christianity in expansion, are to be ashamed of themselves.

At 4/19/2010 12:17:25 PM, Zetsubou wrote:It's not the Qur'an, it's MUSLIMS[The qur'an is more peaceful]. I would have accepted any chanllenge from you or Mirza, but I find private debates to be more meaning full than offical ones.

Mirza just won't accept Islam was forced to hold the bloody sword, and does so even today.

No. You don't differentiate between battles (with blood, yes) due to defense and for aggression.

And it is spreading with force today? Nonsense.

Tell me, which Islamic army conquered Indonesia? Say it if you can. Mention one soldier of an Islamic army that conquered it, and I am giving up on this right now. It was spread through traders etc., just like everywhere else. The thing here is that nobody opposed Muslims, unlike Christians in Europe who did.

Also, why are you following a book more violent than the Qur'an? If you think the Qur'an encourages Muslims to fight, then let us debate it. Let's end this discussing with that. Let's see whether the Qur'an will make people kill ever before the Bible.

Because realistically violence for a cause is better for the cause. Machiavellian Politics of rule.